RE: Future Handling of Blue Sheets

"George, Wes" <wesley.george@twcable.com> Mon, 23 April 2012 14:04 UTC

Return-Path: <wesley.george@twcable.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E31321F8642 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 07:04:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.295
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.295 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.168, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IReymR+SQm9R for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 07:04:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cdpipgw02.twcable.com (cdpipgw02.twcable.com [165.237.59.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0982B21F84D3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 07:04:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-SENDER-IP: 10.136.163.12
X-SENDER-REPUTATION: None
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,467,1330923600"; d="scan'208";a="354720402"
Received: from unknown (HELO PRVPEXHUB03.corp.twcable.com) ([10.136.163.12]) by cdpipgw02.twcable.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 23 Apr 2012 10:03:09 -0400
Received: from PRVPEXVS03.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.26]) by PRVPEXHUB03.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.12]) with mapi; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:04:27 -0400
From: "George, Wes" <wesley.george@twcable.com>
To: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:04:26 -0400
Subject: RE: Future Handling of Blue Sheets
Thread-Topic: Future Handling of Blue Sheets
Thread-Index: Ac0glJ/1u7EJhitqTsicGUyQulUnQwAwUVnQ
Message-ID: <DCC302FAA9FE5F4BBA4DCAD465693779173ED21640@PRVPEXVS03.corp.twcable.com>
References: <2AC114D8-E97B-47A0-B7E0-9EF016DCB09F@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <2AC114D8-E97B-47A0-B7E0-9EF016DCB09F@ietf.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:04:46 -0000

> From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of IETF
> Chair
> Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 10:31 AM
> To: IETF
> Subject: Future Handling of Blue Sheets
>
> 2.  Scan the blue sheet and include the image in the proceedings for the WG
> session; and
> 3.  Discard paper blue sheets after scanning.

[WEG] Based on some other messages in this thread, there seems to be a lack of clarity as to the full, official purpose of the blue sheets. Are they simply to track generic participation levels for room sizing, or are they also meant as a historical record of attendees to a given WG? It seems that if they are being subpoenaed, and they are archived today, I tend to think that they're meant to officially track attendees. I'd appreciate someone correcting me if I'm wrong.

If blue sheets are meant to be an official record, then technically we should document handling/scanning/storage procedures for WG chairs and the secretariat such that this scan will be admissible in lieu of a paper copy for any subpoena or other court proceeding. But if we're honest, I'm not sure that they're of much use as an official record either way. Do we have procedures today that would prevent tampering before the paper copy ends up in an archive box? And even then, blue sheets and jabber logs (for remote participants) are still ultimately a best-effort honor system, and therefore there is no guarantee of their validity. I can remotely participate without registering for the meeting, and can sign into Jabber as "Mickey Mouse" just as easily as I can sign the blue sheet that way. I can also sign as "Randy Bush" or sign my own name completely illegibly.

Could we simply do a headcount for room sizing, and treat the matter of official attendee record for WG meetings as a separate problem? IMO, it's not currently solved by the blue sheets, and I don't see that changing just because we dispense with the paper copies in a box in a warehouse.

Thanks
Wes George

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.